Saturday, October 23, 2010

So just how bad will it be for Democrats on November 2?

It won't be good, that's for sure. The economy isn't doing well, there's a good deal of anti-incumbent sentiment out there, conservatives are fired up, fueled by Tea Party rage, and, well, the party that holds the White House tends not to do well in the president's first midterms.

In other words, as Steve Benen puts it: "The question isn't whether Democrats are in for a beating in the midterm elections; the question is how severe it will be."

There's no denying the so-called "enthusiasm gap," with Republicans more likely to vote than Democrats, but, personally, I think the Republicans may have peaked. They'll win the House but not the Senate, and do well across the country at the state level, but the damage won't be as "severe" as fears and forecasts might suggest. And it could very well be that Democrats are tightening the race, in overall terms, as we count down the days to November 2.

Despite doom-saying about Democrats' chances in the midterms, the latest NEWSWEEK Poll (full results)
shows that they remain in a close race with Republicans 12 days before
Election Day, while the president’s approval ratings have climbed
sharply. The poll finds that 48 percent of registered voters would be
more likely to vote for Democrats, compared with 42 percent who lean
Republican (those numbers are similar to those in the last NEWSWEEK Poll,
which found Democrats favored 48 percent to 43 percent). President
Obama’s approval ratings have jumped substantially, crossing the magic
halfway threshold to 54 percent, up from 48 percent in late September,
while the portion of respondents who disapprove of the president dropped
to 40 percent, the lowest disapproval rating in a NEWSWEEK Poll since
February 2010...

While two thirds (69 percent) of self-identified Republican voters say
they've given a lot or some thought to the election, 62 percent of
Democrats say they have. This result indicates that the difference in
enthusiasm between Democratic and Republican voters may be less stark
than some otherpolls have suggested.

But, again, I suspect that their support, and everything working in their favour, may have maxed out, such as Obama's low popularity rating, which appears to be rising, and Democratic voters' lack of enthusiasm, which appears to be turning around as the election draws near. Furthermore, while there is indeed a great deal of anti-incumbent sentiment out there, a great deal of anger directed at those in power (whether they deserve it or not), it's not like voters like what Republicans have to offer or think that Republicans are a much more preferable alternative. And with Obama and Bill Clinton on the campaign trail, doing what they do so well, there is every indication that Democratic enthusiasm will continue to rise in the days to come.

In other words, it may just turn out to be a lot closer than you think.

Iraq: the true picture

In what is sure to be a blockbuster of a series, The New York Times has analyzed materials obtained from Wikileaks with respect to the Bush war of derangement in Iraq.

It is not pretty. An example:

In another case, in February 2007, an Apache helicopter shot and killed two Iraqi men believed to have been firing mortars, even though they made surrendering motions, because, according to a military lawyer cited in the report, "they cannot surrender to aircraft, and are still valid targets."

Friday, October 22, 2010

Am I the last person left with long-term memory?

You will see me shedding no tears for Juan Williams' firing from NPR. It's not a First Amendment issue. Free speech gives you the right to say whatever you want, but when you are a paid commentator, it doesn't protect you from getting the heave-ho from your employer when you say something stupid and are being promoted as a representative of their brand. Besides, a $2 million consolation prize from Fox News is a nice consolation prize for someone who is Fox's idea of a liberal the way that Alan Colmes was. The only real liberal I ever saw was on the only show Fox ever aired that used to be truly fair and balanced, "Fox NewsWatch." His name was Neal Gabler but he criticized the boss and co-workers too often so he got shown the door as did the impartial moderator Eric Burns and the show turned into a propaganda fest like every other program. (One of the replacement "liberals" was Juan Williams.)

Before I move on to my other reasons for why I think his NPR firing was long overdue, just let me add that the comment that got him axed showed his ignorance. He admitted getting nervous when he got on a plane and saw people dressed in "Muslim garb." None of the 9/11 hijackers wore Muslim garb, brain wizard. If you saw people dressed in Muslim garb, that probably would be more of an indication of safety.

Of course, I've disliked Williams since long before Fox News even existed. No one seems to remember (and no one would probably have remembered this week if not for the fortuitous timing of that famous Teabagger, Mrs. Clarence Thomas, calling Anita Hill for an apology) that Juan Williams is a sexist moron.

Back during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings, Williams, thought of as a "liberal" wrote scathing columns against Anita Hill, saying her story was full of holes. What he didn't say was that he was sympathizing with Thomas because at the time he was being accused of sexual harassment by 50 (you read that right, that's why I put it in bold) Post employees and was disciplined, though it amounted to a slap on the wrist, considering the numbers involved.

Of course, though Firedoglake remembered that and reported it today, I seem to be the only one that recalls that Williams scoured his copy of the novel The Exorcist to find a passage he remembered about a pubic hair and a drink and showed it to Arlen Specter who then brought it up in his questioning of Anita Hill to accuse her of having read the book and having it inspire her to make up the pubic hair on the Coke can incident.

One positive thing did come out of re-opening the Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill can of worms: It inspired Thomas' former girlfriend to finally come forward and back up her charges of how he was obsessed with porn and would comment on female office workers' breast sizes. We've always known he committed perjury (I mean, he never discussed Roe v. Wade? Yeah, right), but this is more evidence of it. Still, nothing will come of it. They don't have the balls to pursue the last administration's far more serious crimes, you think they'd try to go after a Supreme Court justice for perjury? They wouldn't have even done that back in 1991.

To me, the most sickening display is watching all the talking heads on all sides of the political spectrum take to the airwaves to defend Williams because they all are on the same D.C. party circuit. Truth doesn't matter. Actions don't matter. No one remembers anything.

The Party of Hell No: What Republicans will do if they retake the House or Senate

During the Bush years, Republicans on Capitol Hill essentially rubber-stamped whatever the president wanted. Instead of checking and balancing, they enabled Bush and Cheney to expand the imperial presidency so much that the very foundations of American democracy buckled.

When Obama won in '08, with Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate, Republicans became the Party of No, a disloyal opposition party that sought to obstruct everything the Democrats put forward, largely though the filibuster rule in the Senate that effectively prevents majority rule and anything from getting done but also through the total rejection of compromise.

They occasionally talked compromise, such as on health-care reform, but that was always just to mask their real intention, which was to block the Democrats from governing (and winning an issue), and to come across to the public as something other than a party of obstructionism during a time of economic crisis, as well as to try to run the clock out as much as possible.

It looks like Republicans will win the House next month. And what will they do back in power, if only on that side of Capitol Hill? Work with Democrats, who will likely retain control of the Senate? Seek meaningful and productive compromises with Obama? Of course not. And we can thank one of their leaders, one of the true standard bearers of conservative Republicanism, for being open about their plans:

Republicans aren't interested in compromising with President Obama on
major issues if they retake the House or Senate, a senior GOP lawmaker
said.

"Look, the time to go along and get along is over," said
Rep. Mike Pence (Ind.), the chairman of the House Republican Conference.
"House Republicans know that. We’ve taken firm and principled stands
against their big government plans throughout this Congress, and we’ve
got, if the American people will send them, we’ve got a cavalry of men
and women headed to Washington, D.C. that are going to stand with us."

Pence
said his party wouldn't compromise on issues like spending or
healthcare reform, two of the weightiest items on Congress's agenda next
year, when the Republicans could control one or both chambers.

"Look,
there will be no compromise on stopping runaway spending, deficits and
debt. There will be no compromise on repealing Obamacare. There will be
no compromise on stopping Democrats from growing government and raising
taxes," Pence told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt Thursday evening. "And if I haven’t been clear enough yet, let me say again: No compromise."

Americans, rightly or wrongly, have had it up to here (you know where) with both parties, but right now much of that popular anger, in a time of economic difficulty, is being directed (unfairly) at incumbents, most of whom happen to be Democrats. This is what happens in a president's first midterms and also what happens when the economy is in bad shape and people are suffering. Voters will take it out on Democrats and give Republicans a shot, even if, for the most part, they don't like Republicans any more than Democrats and actually trust them less than the party in power. It's a case of anything but the status quo, even if that "anything" means unpopular Republicans who don't have much of an agenda beyond being obstructionist and pushing for the failed policies that sunk America into economic crisis and, as with the huge Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, continue to wreak havoc on the country.

But voters should know what they're getting with Republicans. They aren't just some innocuous alternative but the Party of Hell No, a party that is categorically opposed to compromise, to working with the president and Democrats to deal with the very serious problems the country faces.

Now, I actually think a Republican takeover of the House could be good politically for Obama, as he would have a more powerful opposition to push back against. And I also think that, in power (if only in the House), Republicans would make themselves look even worse, weakening what little popularity they have now. And maybe we need Republicans to expose themselves more than they have already so that the American people can see for themselves just what they're all about: obstructionism mixed with wild ideological extremism that is at odds with the American mainstream and with what the people seem to want, extremism that includes more tax cuts for the wealthy and for corporations, privatized Social Security, repeal of even the most popular elements of Obamacare, deregulation of Wall Street, and opposition to efforts to address climate change.

But at what cost?

Republicans are already able to obstruct whatever they want in Congress, given the filibuster in the Senate, and it would only get worse if they won the House and were able to spend their time playing partisan games, holding ridiculous hearings and conducting futile investigations, dragging Obama and the Democrats into the mud.

Is that really what the American people want? Is that really what the country needs at a time like this, if ever? And yet that's precisely what will happen if voters allow misguided and misdirected anger and anti-incumbent sentiment to get the better of them.

We know what Republicans are all about and we know what they'll do if they're returned to power. Voters should, too. Ignorance is no excuse.

The biggest problam facing America today. .

. . . is pornography. Well at least it has been according to orators at several Republican national conventions in recent memory. It's possible that such things are motivated by a Christian analogue of another right wing obsession: Sharia law, and it's possible that it was a smokescreen to divert attention from other core policies like borrowing on the promise of self funding tax cuts. One thing is clear, Politicians tend to be a randy lot, but Conservative males love porn the way they love money and women: they want it all for themselves.

Remember Ken Starr who wanted to make it a crime to use the word "breast" on the Internet but spent millions and wrote endless words, even on the Internet, about Bill Clinton's penis, Monica Lewinsky's cigar and related subjects? Yes, I know, Democrats like porn too and cheat on their wives and are hypocrites and all that as I'm sure someone will assure me to obscure the fact that they haven't been on a moral crusade for those nebulous but normative "family values" for decades. I've had all the contrived and deceptive equivalences I need for now, thank you.

Which brings me to Clarance Thomas. It was the equivalent of a lynching, said he when accusations were leveled by another conservative that he'd offered her a Coke with pubic hair on it, even though she had little reason to lie and had complained to the FBI only in private. Anita Hill was branded a Liberal, although she wasn't and isn't, in a fashion far more evocative of a lynching than the sworn testimony against Justice Thomas. It seems now that Lillian McEwen, a former girlfriend of the distinguished Justice says he was "obsessed with porn," and often made inappropriate sexual comments about and unwanted advances toward women in his office and she's kept quiet until now. She confirms, for instance, that he asked women about their breast size when at work.

Perhaps it was knowledge that the book contained such damning information that prompted his wife's odd early morning call to Anita Hill, but I don't think she need fear that he'll lose his job or reputation when the accusation of LIBERAL still carries the power that the accusation of WITCH used to have in centuries past. We're stuck with an overgrown adolescent and liar on the highest court. We may all have his pubic hair in all the wrong places and we don't have a hell of a lot of choice but to drink from the can.

Christine O’Donnell, shedding brain cells before our eyes

You may have seen this, but it’s so damn much fun that I
have to post it myself.

Christine O’Donnell, the Republican candidate for the
U.S. Senate for Delaware was debating her opponent Chris Coons. She asked Coons
where in the Constitution one can find a reference to the separation of church
and state. The audience gasped and giggled because, as a group with at least a
basic education, they knew instantly that it was in fact the First Amendment
that sets out this seminal doctrine. The text is as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances.

In
the clip below, the audience howls, and Coons schools O’Donnell, as she proves
herself to be woefully unqualified to be a U.S. Senator. All is right with the
world.

Now the fun starts. What follows reminds me of that Hunter S. Thompson quote: "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."

O’Donnell was not only schooled in this pathetic episode, but she was too stupid to know she was being schooled. In an interview on ABC television shortly after, she claims that all the press got it wrong and it was she who embarrassed Coons in the exchange. I’m not joking. Here is what she said:

It's really funny the way that the media reports things. After that debate my team and I we were literally high fiving each other thinking that we had exposed he doesn't know the First Amendment, and then when we read the reports that said the opposite we were all like "what?"

O'Donnell explained that her line of questioning to Coons was not because she didn't know the First Amendment, but to make the point the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution.

So, her explanation was that the exact words “separation of church and state” do not appear in the text verbatim, despite the fact that anyone reasonably conversant with the English language would understand the intent of the phrase “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

Wow, she missed that. And we are going to miss her after election day. This has been too much fun.

No, it's not (only) occupation

In 2003, Robert Pape published an article in The American Political Science Review that claimed suicide terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. Instead, it is caused by military occupations, like those undertaken by the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan. The article made a big splash in both the policy and academic worlds. Seven years later, Pape continues to influence policy debates, most recently with a piece in Foreign Policy.

Pape's argument goes as follows: suicide terror is not caused by Islam, or any other religion. The greatest supporting example for this is use of suicide terrorism by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), a nationalist Hindu group in Sri Lanka. Pape argues suicide terror is a rational tactic in the face of a stronger foe that is occupying a group's homeland. Said occupation makes people very angry, and suicide terrorist attacks are the best means through which to remove the occupying forces as it is an effective tactic. Pape's argument has everything an academic could hope for: it is straightforward, relevant, and was picked up by policymakers and pundits. The one problem, however, is that it isn't completely accurate.

Pape's theory has drawn many critics. Mia Bloom argued that the primary driver of suicide terrorism is groups' competition for public support, not occupation. Max Abrahms questioned whether terrorism is as effective as Pape says. Assaf Moghadam put together a fair--but withering--critique of Pape's analysis, and presented an alternative analysis that points to globalization and radical Islamist ideology. And an excellent methodological critique by several scholars pointed to issues in Pape's argument with selecting on the dependent variable.

So what are the problems with Pape's argument? He is right that Islam doesn't cause suicide terrorism. But there are a few issues with ascribing it to a rational response to occupation. First, the definition of occupation is a bit broad. The US in Iraq would count, but should cases of separatist tension--such as Chechnya, and Kurdish regions of Turkey--count as occupation? Or is it actually ethnic divisions combined with other factors, a less parsimonious but more accurate explanation.

Second, Pape's explanation would struggle to explain transnational attacks, like 9/11 or the flood of foreign fighters to Iraq after the US invasion. One could say that this is a case of anger over occupation leading to attacks outside the occupied territory. But what motivates someone to take an interest in the occupation of other countries, to the extent of killing themselves to stop it? Maybe a transnational ideology like the radical religious one adopted by al-Qaida (AQ)?

The usual concern with policymakers picking up on inaccurate academic theories is that it will prompt them to implement dangerous policies. In the case of Pape, though, his policy suggestions involve ceasing occupation of other countries and focusing only on the United States' vital interests. While I am a bit more of an internationalist than Pape, I have a hard time finding anything horribly wrong with these policies.

There are two areas of concern, though. First, AQ--and similar groups that could emerge in the future--may continue to try and attack the United States in the absence of an occupation. Second, viewing domestic terrorist activities--like the LTTE or Turkey's PKK--as cases of occupation may be counterproductive. These conflicts were not always caused by military invasion of a territory, but the neglect or repression of a minority group by the central government. Pointing to occupation may preclude institutional changes that can resolve the conflict short of dismembering a country.

So Pape has done us a great service by dispelling myths about Islam causing suicide terrorism, and provoking great debate and analysis of this phenomenon. But the foreign policy community should follow academia's lead and subject this grand claim to the sort of scrutiny any such argument requires.

File This Under D for "Duh!"

Thursday, October 21, 2010

"Papers, please, unless you're Canadian"

Florida is coming up with its own version of the Arizona immigration law, and according to this story by Elsie Foley in the Washington Independent, it basically gives white people a free pass.

The bill includes a provision allowing Canadians and Western Europeans to be “presumed to be legally in the United States,” even though other non-citizens must carry papers. Florida’s bill, which was drafted by Rep. William Snyder (R), has support from Rick Scott, the Republican candidate for governor. Although proponents of the legislation argue it would not lead to racial profiling, the provision on Canadians and Western Europeans — most of whom are white non-Latinos — brings up new concerns for Latino groups. (The Miami New Times, which originally pointed out the provision, has a full copy of the draft bill.)

Latino and immigrant rights groups have fervently opposed the bill, which would mimic Arizona’s SB 1070 by requiring police to check legal status on anyone they “reasonable suspicions” of being in the country illegally if the police have already stopped them. The provision would allow them to assume legal status if the person had a Canadian passport or a “passport from any ‘visa waiver country’” — which are primarily located in Western Europe. “That language makes it clear that police are targeting only a specific minority,” Susana Barciela, policy director at the Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center, told the Miami New Times.

Mr. Snyder also made it quite clear that he's exempting Canadians because they're vital to the tourist industry; a lot of them spend their winters here, he noted, and he wants to be "sensitive" to them. (Since when have conservatives ever given a rat's ass about being "sensitive"?)
Adam Serwer says that the goal of the bill is to reduce the Latino population in Florida. Actually, that would be the non-Cuban Latino population, since Cubans already get the Priority Access treatment thanks to the current law that lets them in without going through all the bother if they can make it to dry land in Key Biscayne.

I also agree with Mr. Serwer: at least this bill does away with all the pretense about trying to write an immigration law that doesn't target people who look like they might be an "illegal immigrant."(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Yes Virginia, there is a Ganja Clause

Last week Virginia Thomas, the teabagging wife of one of the most incompetent Supreme Court Justices in history - Clarence Thomas, called Anita Hill and asked her to apologize to her husband for her "false and misleading" testimony during his confirmation hearings.

Hearings that were held in 1991. Nineteen years ago.

To be brief, Ms. Hill was dragged in front of Congress (she did not want to testify) during the Thomas hearings and told the sitting senators (including Vice President Biden) that Clarence Thomas had sexually harassed her while she worked for him as a clerk. The testimony was explosive and graphic - complete with coke cans, pubic hairs and pornography.

Ms. Hill was treated abominably and publicly humiliated by the Senate (especially Arlen Specter) and basically called a liar. In the end, Thomas was confirmed by a vote of 52-48. Later on, Senator John Danforth, who sponsored Thomas - said he regretted how the Senate treated Hill.

It goes without saying, Virginia Thomas' recent actions are nothing short of bizarre, inappropriate and truly delusional. Dredging up the past at this point, leaving a message like that on an answering machine and calling at 645am - none of this rings of a shred of common decency or normal behavior.

But remember Virginia Thomas is an activist teabagger who is married to one very angry man (read excerpts from his book). The fact that a Supreme Court justice's (albeit a pitiful excuse for a justice) wife is a conservative activist smacks of major conflicts of interest. But in this age of no-accountability and anything-to-win, none of this comes as a surprise.

So yes Virginia, there is a Ganja Clause* all for you.

(sung to "Do You Hear What I Hear?")

Said the teabag nut to the College Prof,

"I don't see what you see"

Not upon the can of Coke, College Prof

"I don't see what you see"

What pube, What pube, taped upon the can

From a dong as long as John

From, a dong as long as John."

Said the College Prof to the teabag nut,

"Did I hear what you said?"

Ring my phone at 6am, teabag nut

Did I hear what you said?"

Apologize, admit I made it up

Your nerve tis big as Long John Dong,

You should throw away that bong.

Said the teabag nut to the silent judge,

"Did I do the right thing?

You were lynched, you did no act

Did I do the right thing?

Our prez, Our prez, A socialist in fact

You nine should force to show proof of birth

Or this country will leave the Earth

Said the College Prof to the FBI

"Listen to what she said!

An olive branch to admit your guilt ,

Listen to what she said!

The 'baggers, the 'baggers, insane up to the hilt

They will bring us sadness to mourn

While he will bring us nothing but porn.

This is the cost of allowing ultra-conservatives to mainstream their psychoses. Ginny Thomas' behavior is consistent with the rightwing belief that they are better and always right - that even behavior anb average person would deem offensive is owed an apology from people they see beneath them.

*Ganja Clause - a mythical figure said to visit stoners that have been good in the last year. Ganja Claus is most often pictured as a jolly old rasta with long dredlocks, dressed head to toe in green. He flies through the sky on a lawn chair pulled by 8 giant sloths.

The recovery will not be televised

Throughout the rule of Dubya, the game was about denying the cancer eating at the economy: the lack of job growth, the exploding debt, the declining revenue. We saw articles proving that it was the "Liberals" who were endangering the economy with their gloomy predictions. Fox told us that the predominance of negative economic reports was proof, not of negative economic implications, but of the Liberal bias of the media. When a certain amount of reality was unavoidably showing through the flimsy screen, it was Bill Clinton's fault.

As with the 11 year sunspot cycle, each resurgence of activity arrives with a reversed magnetic polarity and of course the game now is to show that any signs of recovery that can't be ignored, repressed or misrepresented will be buried under hyperbole and deceitful numbers. Since employment levels only begin to fall long after a recovery, we will hear no end of talk about it from the fair and balanced folk and of course we will hear about reckless government spending -- as we always do under a Democratic administration, even when the budget is balanced. The recovery will not be televised, if it's acknowledged at all.

The bulls are loose on Wall Street following increased consumer spending and investor confidence in the recovery. Banks are beginning to lend to small businesses again. Leading indicators are up for three consecutive months now, the wild and reckless TARP program is returning a profit while the folks who brought about the nosedive are still howling about Nancy Pelosi's Job Killing Bill, making fictitious claims about spending levels and other hypertrophied hyperbole as though we hadn't lost more jobs and shipped them overseas when they last had the reins and were telling the Liberals to stop 'whining.'

They're never going to admit that a catastrophe has been avoided, that we could have had 25% unemployment again or a decade of deep depression and a poverty level we haven't seen since the 1930's. No, not until they get back into power, that is and we can return to administrative bloat, runaway defense spending, borrowing against the fatuous promise of increased revenues from top bracket tax cuts and giving Wall Street and banking pirates, mining, drilling, food and drug and insurance companies free reign. Things will be all right then and we can be sure that doing what caused 1929 crash and the more recent crash will not happen again even if we do the same things that caused both. Only a stupid liberal would believe such a thing.

...But I Did Stay At A Holiday Inn Express!

[Christine] O’Donnell once told voters that her “No. 1” qualification for the Senate is an eight-day course she took at a conservative think tank in 2002.

Let me say that again: Oh brother!

Keep in mind that she's actually one of the more educated Teabaggers, having graduated from the first college she attended (Sarah Palin needed five shots at it).

HOW ARE WE IN ANY DANGER OF LOSING TO THESE PEOPLE????

OK, into the meat of the article.

[O'Donnell's] fellow Tea Party patriots—Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, the guy at the rally in the tricorn hat—also refer to the Constitution as if it were a holy instruction manual that was lost, but now, thanks to them, is found. And yet the reverberations go further back than Beck. The last time America elected a new Democratic president, in 1992, the Republican Party’s then-dominant insurgent group used identical language to describe the altogether different document that defined their cause and divided them from the heretics in charge: the Bible. The echoes of the religious right in O’Donnell’s speech—the Christian framework, the resurrection narrative, the “us vs. them” motif, the fixation on “values”—aren’t coincidental.

From a legal perspective, there’s a case to be made that O’Donnell’s argument is inaccurate. The Constitution is a relentlessly secular document that never once mentions God or Jesus. And nothing in recent jurisprudence suggests that the past few decades of governing have been any less constitutional than the decades that preceded them. But the Tea Party’s language isn’t legal, and neither is its logic. It’s moral: right vs. wrong. What O’Donnell & Co. are really talking about is culture war.

The argument, therefore, is not about the Constitution per se. The Constitution, as George Bush put it, is "just a goddamned piece of paper" to these morons, a means to an end that would substantially and perhaps permanently alter this nation into a Taliban-ish theocracy.

Or not. The cynic in me says that the second tyrant-con artists like Beck and Palin took over, the libertinism of the ensuing nation would be rather...well, Sodom and Gommorah would have nothing on us.

The Constitution is a piece of art as well as a bundle of laws. The original "original intent" was to make the document a living testament to change, a way to acknowledge that monarchies are slow to respond to the will of the people, even a monarchy that allowed as much freedom as 18th Century England did (Magna Carta and all that stuff). It was an admission that a democratic form of governance will most certainly require flexibility, the people being fickle and capricious.

But...

Even the Founders couldn't forsee how radically the nation could change. I wonder what their objections would be to the country now? Women voting? Free blacks voting? Technology? Multinational corporations? Densely populated cities the size of entire states?

Would they get angry at, as Bill Vaughn puts it, citizens of America who would cross an ocean to fight for democracy, but not cross the street to vote (h/t Dogg, who really should restart his blog)? Would they get angrier still at the lack of decency in public discourse, how the Teabaggers are smearing a President not for his policy but for his skin color?

Well, maybe not that last one. It was not unheard in those days for a political figure to be slandered.

Or would they marvel at how out of date their very progressive, very forward-leaning document has become?

The Second Amendment...if they saw the crime statistics in densely populated areas, and how infinitely more frequent guns are used to deprive fellow citizens of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," would they insist on going back and striking that amendment?

Or the Fourth and Fifth Amendments...would they go back and insert a right to privacy, since today a man in one room, often a government official, can spy on a man way across the country with a remote camera (keeping in mind this would also make abortion de facto constitutional, and Roe v Wade would be unnecessary)?

Would they clarify that a government has the right to raise funds in any way it sees fit, or would they more closely define taxes to exclude income and to be a fairer system across the board?

Would they see that the divisions that threatened the nation from the get-go, South v. North, rural v. urban, are tearing at its fabric now, and want to insert a new convenant, perhaps realizing that a mechanism that allows the smallest states to have near-equal say in legislation made sense when the country was thirteen states and 4 million people, but not at fifty states and 330 million.

One thing is for certain, they'd be mortified that such low-class mongerers of hate as Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin have not been weeded out of the political process.

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Christine O'Donnell uses debate against Chris Coons to reveal her abject ignorance of the Constitution and the foundations of American democracy

Yes, Christine O'Donnell really is stupid -- and, needless to say, utterly unqualified to hold public office, let alone a seat in the U.S. Senate.

It's one thing not to be able to name a Supreme Court decision you disagree with, quite another not to have a clue about something as fundamental to American democracy as the separation of Church and State -- not to mention the First Amendment.

Yesterday, during a debate at Delaware's Widener School of Law, O'Donnell and her opponent, Chris Coons, were discussing whether or not creationism (or so-called "intelligent design") should be taught in public-school science classes. Once again, as in their recent TV debate, O'Donnell refused to say whether or not, as she has said publicly before, she believes that evolution is a myth. But it was what followed that was perhaps even more troubling:

Coons said that creationism, which he considers "a religious
doctrine," should not be taught in public schools due to the
Constitution's First Amendment. He argued that it explicitly enumerates
the separation of church and state.

"The First
Amendment does?" O'Donnell asked. "Let me just clarify: You're telling
me that the separation of church and state is found in the First
Amendment?"

"Government shall make no establishment of
religion," Coons responded, reciting from memory the First Amendment to
the U.S. Constitution. (Coons was off slightly: The first amendment
actually reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion.")

"That's in the First Amendment...?" O'Donnell responded.

And there was more:

Also during the debate, O'Donnell stumbled when asked whether or not
she would repeal the 14th, 16th, or 17th Amendments if elected.

"The
17th Amendment I would not repeal," she said, before asking the
questioner to define the 14th and 16th amendments, adding: "I'm sorry, I
didn't bring my Constitution with me."

Oh, you say, you O'Donnell apologist, most people don't know their Constitutional Amendments by heart, and Coons wasn't exactly perfect himself, so stop picking on her. Well...

Earlier in the debate, O'Donnell accused Coons of constitutional
ignorance, saying that "perhaps they didn't teach you Constitutional law
at Yale Divinity School."

She's amazing, isn't she? You gotta give her that.

(Oh, and where exactly did she study Constitutional law? Was it Harvard or Yale or Columbia or Berkeley or Stanford or Chicago or Cornell or Georgetown? I forget.)

Calgary elects Muslim mayor

Calgary, a deeply conservative city in the heart of the most conservative province in Canada, the city that pretty much drives Canadian conservatism, has elected... a Muslim mayor?

Many of you may not appreciate the significance of this. For the rest of you, feel free to let out another gasp.

Voting was heavy, about 53 percent, for Monday's mayoral election in Calgary, one of many municipal elections held throughout Alberta. Naheed Nenshi has never held elected office before, but, riding a wave of change in a city of oil and rodeos, he triumphed over his conservative rivals, winning a 40 percent plurality of the vote. Upon taking office, he will the first Muslim mayor of a major Canadian city. The Globe and Mail explains what Nenshi represents:

In many ways, Naheed Nenshi’s come-from-behind win in Calgary’s mayoral race is a traditional story.

Mr.
Nenshi is qualified, charismatic and well-spoken. His career path has
set him up well, perhaps purposefully, for a political career. He earned
key endorsements and had all the momentum going into election day.

But, of course, his victory is unique, both for reasons the
38-year-old is inclined to discuss – such as his impressive grassroots "Purple Army" shoestring campaign – and those that he is not. He
represents a changing Calgary, with its 230,000 visible-minority
residents (nearly a quarter of the population), as the city's first
non-white mayor.

In a province so often dominated by its
conservatives, who supported opponents Barb Higgins and Ric McIver, Mr.
Nenshi was a rallying point for progressive Alberta – young and old,
white and non-white, eager to debunk their city’s conservative Cowtown
image.

Of course, Nenshi only won a plurality, not a majority, and, taken together, his two conservative rivals outperformed him, receiving 58 percent of the vote, suggesting that Calgary is not nearly as progressive as his victory might suggest.

Still, this is a hugely significant win for the forces of progressivism, even if Nenshi's views are generally quite moderate (and certainly not radical), in a province that for the most part is staunchly conservative, suggesting that even Calgary, even this bastion of right-wing obstinacy is opening up and liberalizing somewhat, prepared, at least to a point, to join the rest of Canada in a brighter future.

Now it's just up to Nenshi to do the job well, and to expand on what he has built, so that he can effectively guide the city forward.

(As for me, I'm just waiting for American conservatives like Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich to complain that this suspicious-looking Muslim was elected mayor way too close to Ground Zero. How dare Calgarians spit all over the memory of 9/11! Perhaps if he were to move further away, say, up to the Yukon. No, that's too close to Alaska. Maybe to Nunavut. No, it doesn't matter where, the problem is really that these good-for-nothing Canadians elected a Muslim in the first place. No wonder Sharron Angle thinks we're to blame! Calgary, thy name is Park51!)

Anita Hill and the despicable "olive branch" of Virginia Thomas, wife of Clarence

As ABC News is reporting, Virginia Thomas, wife of Clarence, recently left a phone message for Anita Hill:

Good morning, Anita Hill, it's Ginny Thomas. I just wanted to reach across the airwaves and the
years and ask you to consider something. I would love you to consider an
apology sometime and some full explanation of why you did what you did
with my husband. So give it some thought and certainly pray about this
and come to understand why you did what you did. OK, have a good day.

That's right, Virginia asked Hill to apologize for what she did. What did she do? She testified at Clarence's Senate confirmation hearings that he had sexually harrassed her in the workplace, when she worked for him both at the Department of Education and at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in the '80s.

It may be the case that there is no definitive evidence to support either side -- Clarence denied the accusation, as he has denied it ever since, and claimed he was the victim of a "high-tech lynching" -- but there is absolutely no reason for Hill to apologize for anything. As she told ABC News:

Even if it wasn't a prank, it was in no way conciliatory for her to
begin with the presumption that I did something wrong in 1991. I simply
testified to the truth of my experience. For her to say otherwise is not
extending an olive branch, it's accusatory... I don't apologize. I have no intention of apologizing, and I stand by my testimony in 1991.

Good for her. Good for standing firm. Virginia claims that "no offense was ever intended," but she basically accused Hill of lying, of smearing her husband, and there was certainly no indication that she believes any of Hill's story. It would be one thing to seek to get past what happened by first acknowledging on her end that, at the very least, her husband had behaved inappropriately. It is quite another to heap the blame on Hill and, from that basis, extend an "olive branch."

The Liberal Mandate

In terms of legislative successes, the current session of Congress is "at least on a par with the 89th Congress" of 1965-66, said Norman Ornstein, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

But, he added, Republicans have done all they could to discredit Congress, and Democrats have failed to sell their agenda. Moreover, it will take years to fully feel the effects of the health-care law and financial regulation.

"A world dominated by bickering and epithet-throwing and bomb-tossing in Washington obscures accomplishments," Ornstein said.

That Congress passed LBJ's Medicare and Medicaid, the cornerstones of the too-short Great Society programs, and the Civil Rights Act that Rand Paul wants to repeal. It also allowed the escalation of the war in Vietnam, and probably singel-handedly brought down LBJ's presidency. It also lost 48 seats in the House and four in the Senate. A similar result this time around would mean both houses of Congress would turn Republican.

We can't let that happen.

Here's what the 111th Congress has accomplished.

In addition to healthcare reform, Wall Street accountability and the various bailout programs, and despite Republican obstructionism, we have:

Making college loans more affordable.

The Cash for Clunkers program to help the auto industry.

New consumer protections for credit-card users.

Making it easier for women to challenge pay discrimination.

Increasing federal regulation of tobacco products.

Cracking down on waste in Pentagon weapons acquisition.

Making attacks based on sexual orientation a federal hate crime.

Giving businesses tax incentives to hire unemployed workers.

Tax credits for first-time homeowners.

Here's what we need to do, what everyone who believes in the future of this country needs to do. It doesn't matter if you live in a red state or the bluest of blue, do this. If we can steal a few seats back from the withdrawing tide, it will have been worth it.

We each of us needs to vote. We need to persuade five friends to vote. We need to read them this blogpost, send them a link, and convince them that voting for Democrats is the only thing that will save this country. And we need to make sure they vote for the Democrat.

It's not going to be hard to do that. The spectre of the Carl Paladinos and the Christine O'Donnells of the nation should be enough to tip the scales. Here's the follow up. Here's the real deal.

We need to get in the face of those Democrats who win, and do it endlessly, daily if necessary, and remind them that we saved their bacon, we saved their jobs, and if they don't vote a progressive, liberal agenda, we will make sure next time not to vote for them. Don't threaten to run against them (altho I might). Don't threaten to get all rowdy with them. Use the one tool they cannot offset: your vote. Your vote is the most important tool in a progressive agenda.

And if they get afraid of being "liberal", just copy this for them, which I have proudly placed at the top of my blog:

"Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things...every one! So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, 'Liberal,' as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won't work, Senator, because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor."

Do this, and the 112th session of Congress might end up being even more productive, and certainly more progressive.

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Sarah Palin: Party like it's 1773!

Those who have read this blog before, or who know me at all, know that I'm a proud and dedicated liberal who supports the Democratic Party and whose politics are, for the most part, deeply progressive.

But you know what? Sometimes liberals (and those otherwise on the left) fuck up.

To wit, there has been much ado today over remarks Sarah Palin made at a Tea Party rally in Reno, Nevada yesterday. Specifically, she told the mob that they shouldn't "party like it's 1773" until conservatives take over Washington.

Stand down everybody. I was quoting Sarah Palin from her Nevada speech yesterday.

Which isn't entirely convincing. What was the "ummm" for if not to suggest that Palin had gotten it wrong?

Whatever the case with Ifill, conservatives are all over this. (Check out the wild reaction at Memorandum.) As they point out, rightly, Palin did in fact mean 1773, not 1776, because the Boston Tea Party happened that year. And, yes, she was obviously referring, with her speech right in front of her, to that event and not to the signing of the Declaration of Independence three years later.

Yes, yes. Fine.

But a simple, knee-jerk mistake by a few liberals/progressives hardly constitutes mass ignorance. Michelle Malkin refers to "[m]oron leftists" and Allahpundit refers to "left-wing imbeciles," as well as to the supposed "[l]efty insta-meme" that the "[i]diot Sarah Palin doesn't know that the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776," but, again, so what? It's not like the mistake of a tiny minority should be held against everyone else, even if rightists like these try to tie us all together. Most of us know that the Boston Tea Party took place in 1773, or at least not in 1776 -- and, of course, most of us didn't jump all over Palin for supposedly speaking in error.

So. Big deal. Whatever. A few liberals fucked up. That's all.

Besides, Palin is often wrong and Markos is usually right. Indeed, earlier today, he tweeted, citing TPM, that Palin (via Twitter) mistakenly endorsed John Raese for Senate from Pennsylvania. Actually, he's running for Senate from West Virginia. Duh.

What's more, I would add that the rallying cry of partying like it's 1773 just doesn't make any sense. It's not things were so great in 1773 -- hence the tea party, which was an act of rebellion (not partying). If you want to party like it's 1776, or 1789, or whatever, that's fine, I suppose, but partying like the British are still your overlords and you have to dump a boatload of tea into Boston Harbor to make a grand political statement is ridiculous.

Just like Sarah Palin is ridiculous, and far worse, however much the mob may cheer and her various supporters and apologists on the right may rush to her defence and lash out at her critics at every opportunity.

I'm not excusing getting the whole "party like it's 1773" thing wrong -- we liberals need to hold ourselves to high standards, and that, unlike for the other side, means getting the facts right -- but, when it comes down to it, it's really just a tempest in a right-wing teapot that shouldn't obscure the fact that Palin is often appallingly wrong when she opens her mouth.

Carly Fiorina and the Republican blueprint for destroying America

By now this story has been widely reported, but I have been trying to
figure out what it means for the political process. I'm talking about
California Republican Senate candidate Carly Fiorina's appearance on Fox News Sunday recently with host Chris Wallace.

Like a seasoned prize fighter, she went into an impressive bob and weave. She
moved deftly to one side, saying that cutting "waste and fraud and
abuse" would be a part of the solution. But Chris Wallace, no fool he,
pointed out that this approach simply doesn't yield the kind of numbers
required. She tried some fancy footwork, saying that at the appropriate
time the American people would be brought into a consultation process,
but Wallace would not be denied.

Finally,
she went back to her "briefing-book-speaking-point-of-last-resort" and,
with sadness in her voice, gave Wallace a piece of her mind. The exact
quote: "See, Chris, I have to -- you know, Chris, I have to say, with all due respect, you're asking a typical political question."

So
here we are on a national public affairs program with someone running
for the U.S. Senate, and the candidate charges the interviewer with doing
the unthinkable, going all political on her.

The
odd part here is not so much what she said as what she meant, which was
that the interviewer was playing "gotcha" with a Republican candidate
who was only doing her best to fight the "inside the Beltway monster"
that is destroying America. For reasons that were clearly beyond
Fiorina, the interviewer would not let her stick to the same pablum that
has played so well thus far in the campaign for her and her side.

But
did I mention she was on Fox News? What she must also have been
thinking was, "Hey Chris, didn't you get the memo from Fox News President
Roger Ailes
instructing you to never ever ask a Republican candidate to explain
anything? Just nod sympathetically, let them promote their website to
increase donations, and then tsk-tsk in agreement with every allegation
of Democratic malfeasance."

But
no, he insisted on asking a political question (i.e., a substantive
question) of a Republican candidate on a political issues show. Jobs are
hard to come by these days, Chris. Do be careful.

So,
I guess, the first point to be made is that even Fox News, or parts of
it, is becoming weary of Republicans avoiding the single biggest issue
of this campaign: What specifically would they cut to make government
smaller? As Wallace asked, much to his credit, "[w]here are you going to cut entitlements? What benefits are you going to cut? What eligibilities are you going to change?"

From
this candidate and other Republicans, no answers are forthcoming, which
leads me to the conclusion that these people are precisely the kind of
politicians that Americans ought to hate: the kind that feed you
bullshit, tell you what they think you want to hear but never tell you
how they are going to do it or what doing it might mean to your country,
your community, or you and your family.

That's
not honesty; that's not integrity. That's the worst of what we should
all reject in politics, and the Republicans are knee-deep in it.

So
we say for the umpteenth time to Ms. Fiorina and all her GOP
stablemates: How are you going to pay for the Bush tax cuts? How are you
going to make government smaller? Show us the math.

But
the fact is that Americans have an expectation of a fairly high level
of government activity and are pretty comfortable with their own
entitlements -- if they are being honest with themselves.

I
strongly suspect that GOP candidates know this or they wouldn't be so
damned petrified to provide specifics, which would only serve to
alienate the constituencies they need to win elections. Well, duh.

So
tell us exactly how a Republican fiscal regime, if implemented, would
work. Give us your blueprint for destroying the country -- one family at a
time.

Communications Breakdown

No one can question Barack Obama's ability to deliver a soaring and inspiring speech. The man is in a rhetorical class that includes Mario Cuomo and perhaps Ronald Reagan. The imagery of the "Yes, We Can" theme that he campaigned with was spectacular, lifting the hopes and dreams of people across the nation and delivering to the President votes that didn't exist in 2004 for John Kerry, who might be the diametric opposite of Obama in speechifying.

But, at the end of the day, if someone is going to talk me down off a ledge, I'd rather it was the Big Dog, President Bill Clinton. The Man of Hope can tell me how sick I am and prescribe medicine. The Man FROM Hope could heal the sick.

Democrats are slightly more likely to think positively about a candidate that Bill Clinton campaigns for, as opposed to one of the countless lucky ones who are getting Barack Obama to wave with them onstage these days, whether they like it or not. Obama is about to head out on a multistate stump tour; Clinton has been at it virtually nonstop all fall.

Clinton really scores among independents, while Obama scores a net minus 27, meaning 12% say they'd be more likely to vote for a candidate campaigning with the current president but 39% say his endorsement would send them voting in the other direction.

Although few Republicans indicated they'd be likely to do the ballot bidding of either Democrat, the negative "I'm voting in the other direction" is much higher for Obama (71%) than for Clinton (46%). Gallup speculates that Obama campaigning for Democrats in one area would also likely boost Republican turnout in automatic antipathy.

A lot of this is perception, of hindsight and perspective. As a friend of mine often said, "I don't miss much of the Clinton years, except the peace and prosperity."

I think the "physician v. healer" metaphor sums up the difference in a nutshell. Obama has an innate ability to perceive the heart of a question and give you a fifteen minute lecture on the history, effects and solutions to the problem under consideration. He can dissect and lecture on practically any topic, and even understand the nuances for different audiences. He sees the battlefield well, in other words, and can draw up a brilliant strategy that takes into account all the factors involved, weighing each one judiciously before pronouncing a solution.

Bill Clinton could see the problem through our eyes, and could understand what we were going through. While his answers may not have been as detailed and comprehensive as Obama's, he spoke the solutions through us, not to us. We felt like he was standing with us, not in front of us, guiding us along the path, not coazing and urging us.

Contrast the two inaugural speeches each gave upon entering the office for the first time. Here's part of Clinton's:

The American people have summoned the change we celebrate today. You have raised your voices in an unmistakable chorus. You have cast your votes in historic numbers. And you have changed the face of Congress, the Presidency, and the political process itself. Yes, you, my fellow Americans, have forced the spring. Now we must do the work the season demands. To that work I now turn with all the authority of my office. I ask the Congress to join with me. But no President, no Congress, no Government can undertake this mission alone.

My fellow Americans, you, too, must play your part in our renewal. I challenge a new generation of young Americans to a season of service: to act on your idealism by helping troubled children, keeping company with those in need, reconnecting our torn communities. There is so much to be done; enough, indeed, for millions of others who are still young in spirit to give of themselves in service, too. In serving, we recognize a simple but powerful truth: We need each other, and we must care for one another.

Now, a similar theme from Obama:

These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land, a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, that the next generation must lower its sights. Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious, and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America: They will be met.

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord. On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics.

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit, to choose our better history, to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

Obama speaks of statistics and in the negative. Clinton speaks of promise, of true hope. Both lecture people, particularly the young votes, but Obama comes off as a little condescending and analytical, while Clinton comes off with an invitation. Obama speaks to our intellect. Clinton speaks viscerally, evocatively.

Look around you. Look at the political dialogue and dynamic of the nation. Which do you think is going to resonate better with a frightened people?

It's interesting, I had not noted the similarity in the country's predicament between the two eras before. Obama of course inherited a far worse position than Clinton had, to be sure. That may have coloured his thinking a little.

None of this is meant to suggest that Obama's vision is less than Clinton's or that Clinton, as great a President as he was, is better or worse than Obama. Each has strengths and weaknesses, but I know that if I was running for office, I'd want Bill Clinton introducing me over Obama six days of the week and twice on Sundays.